On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 04:24:47PM +0000, Michalik, Michal wrote: > Richard - since you obviously have the last word, would you mind to state your > final decision clearly to avoid any further interpretations of your answer?
As it is, I am really not even keeping up with the PTP patches, and so I really cannot look after either of these SyncE programs. > Btw. We also considering contributing your project, if that gets more traction > and would at some time look more promising. What I am concerned about right > now > looking at it, it seems really hardware specific. We aimed to avoid that at > all > cost - our application is not connected to Intel HW at all - it can be used > with NIC of > any vendor. I think the ideal solution would be a new project that combines the best aspects of both efforts. If that can't happen, then I would suggest adopting two distinct names for the binaries, like: - synce4l - synced The second one has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
